Is it time we learned to live with Covid? BBC article today

[PennyDreadfuI]

From the BBC

I'm beginning to think that it might be (and I'm higher risk). It's here to stay, after all, and lockdowns every few months cannot go on indefinitely. All the money spent on lockdown measures could perhaps be ploughed into the NHS to pay for staff/hospitals to provide care for those who need it when they become ill (and to ease the backlog the last lockdown created).

@RainbowParadise I'm not arguing for another lockdown. But I am asking what the phrase "learn to live with it" would actually look like. Because lots of people use it but I'm not sure what exactly they mean.

OP started this thread to muse, rather than to launch a political manifesto, so let's muse.

@Nellodee

And what would these ways of protecting the vulnerable be? How can we protect the care home resident who is being looked after by a mother of three children who are all at school full time? How do we protect the vulnerable 55 year old who is married to an ICU nurse?

We can’t all live like this to protect the vulnerable unfortunately.

Does that sound awful? Of course it does, it’s it’s the harsh reality of life and nature. Always has been and always will be.

In reply to a couple of previous posts, my take on “learn to live with” would be to go back to normal life and allow people to make their own risk assessments and adjust their lives accordingly.

It’s not a popular opinion but I believe it’s shared with more people than are prepared to admit it in public.

Lockdown was awful during a spell of some of the best weather we have had for ages. People will be a lot less compliant stuck at hone in the pissing rain, or standing a car park for and hour or stood waiting to get into the bank.

@Porcupineinwaiting I think people mean have a reasonable balance of protecting people and actually 'living' and not 'existing'. Which after this length of time, and with no clue on when things may be much like before, is not unreasonable. That's my take on it anyway.

I don't think we should do nothing. I think there needs to be some balance and doing all we can to ensure people's jobs are safe and education continues, whilst also making sure the mental health impact doesn't spiral even worse than it already has done.

@Beamur

The lockdowns and restrictions are to buy time while a vaccine is developed and doctors understand how best to treat patients who are seriously ill. It's not just flu. It's a contagious illness with serious and unknown long term effects. The Government could generate income to pay for support for businesses etc if it wanted to (scrap HS2, collect a bit more tax from the dodgers) Kids are back at school, many places of work have found ways to carry on, some businesses will be doing very well out of this. Life has changed, not stopped.

I know it's not just flu. But for a lot of people (myself included) flu isn't 'just' flu, either.

I know the reasons for lockdown, and as I said I supported the last one. However I'm not sure I can support millions more livelihoods lost, cancer diagnoses missed, education on hold (particularly for the poorest), lives lost to suicide...

Of course the kids are back in school and 'some businesses are doing very well out of this'. But that's because we're not in lockdown at the moment. Even the local lockdowns aren't as strict as the last national one - although they're taking their toll, what with those who rely on family for childcare unable to go to work and hospitality staff having their hours cut. If (when?) we go back into lockdown proper things will be far bleaker, particularly as it'll be winter and there's no furlough scheme this time. The poorest will be stuck at home with no money for heating or food (even UC takes five weeks to come through).

*We can’t all live like this to protect the vulnerable unfortunately.

Does that sound awful? Of course it does, it’s it’s the harsh reality of life and nature. Always has been and always will be.*

As I thought. Protect the vulnerable actually means fuck 'em, it's their problem not mine. Yes, it does sound awful.

@Desperado24 so would you envisage there being any legislation to protect certain groups of people - would employers still have to provide a COVID safe workplace fi, or would they only have to RA those considered vulnerable, or would it all be optional?

Something needs to happen

It's been 6 months and there's no end in sight.

We can't go on like this indefinitely for a host of reasons.

my take on “learn to live with” would be to go back to normal life and allow people to make their own risk assessments and adjust their lives accordingly

I tend to agree with this (as someone who would need to be extra vigilant).

Perhaps it would be an idea to spend some of the money spent on lockdown on supporting those who needed/wanted to isolate/shield (a sort of 'shielding benefit')?

As I say, just musing. I don't claim to have the answers.

Back to normal, as in back to how we were before. We can’t all change our lives to protect vulnerable people - if we could we would have done it years ago so that cancer patients with suppressed immune systems could just go about their normal lives and work in offices full of people and take public transport.

I have a health condition that I won’t be broadcasting here that means I have had to completely change profession to work around it - that’s life. My whole team and old business weren’t ever going to adapt around me and it wouldn’t have been fair to expect them to

I dunno, I think there is a lot more we can do before we throw in the towel and call it as every person for themselves. How different would schools going back have been if we were testing properly, for example? Would we have had such a big surge? Similarly, what about if we put proper financial support in place for people who have lost employment? Or provided equipment for older teenagers and students to enable them to learn via a blended model?

Of course it's time to live with it viruses are a natural part of life. And like it or not we are just part of the food chain. Viruses come and kill of the weak. That way the strong overtime become stronger. Its not a nice way to think about it but it is nature.

However as humans for some reason we seem to think we have a god forgiven right to extended every single life for as long as possible.

The silly thing is that in 10-20 years time we will all be moaning that the world is far to overpopulated by 10-20%. Yet the entire world has closed down because something risks killing potentially 0.3-0.6% of people.

People will say its awful to think like this as its peoples families etc. However its life and that's how nature works.

The lockdowns and restrictions are to buy time while a vaccine is developed and doctors understand how best to treat patients who are seriously ill.

But there might not ever be a vaccine. I think put a time limit on a vaccine and if it doesnt come to fruition then no more lockdowns.

@Nellodee

*We can’t all live like this to protect the vulnerable unfortunately.

Does that sound awful? Of course it does, it’s it’s the harsh reality of life and nature. Always has been and always will be.*

As I thought. Protect the vulnerable actually means fuck 'em, it's their problem not mine. Yes, it does sound awful.

we can't protect everyone all the time. It's not possible. We just have do our best to protect as many as we can - but life we will be worse for everyone if our economy continues to tank as it's doing now.

We don’t lockdown every winter for 10,000 Flu deaths do we?

So a certain level of death is clearly acceptable?

Sorry, but that is hypocrisy.

Oh but if we let it run, they’ll be less bus drivers, doctors, bin men etc etc etc

Look at 1918. The YOUNG were dropping like flies then, well what was left of the young right on the back of World War One.

Society dusted itself down & carried on as normal inside two years.

It’s nature, it’s brutal, it’s unfortunate

But this nonsense is unsustainable.

Also worth bearing in mind that a lot of other countries are back to normal or never changed their way of life at all.

I don’t mean rich developed countries, I mean the ones where most of the population likely don’t even know COVID exists and would think we were all insane if they could see what was going on.

It’s very easy to sit in your centrally heated house tapping away on your phone and forget that billions of people worldwide live completely different lives to us and have no option to socially distance or stop going to work

So basically the vulnerable would be screwed @Desperado24. Barred from education, health care and work and left to take their chances. Not so much "living with the "virus" but to hurry up and die of it.

I'd always suspected that "living with the virus" was a dog whistle for eugenicists but really hoped that it was about finding a better way forward.

It is strange that tens of thousands die from flu each year, yet people are acting as if vulnerable people dying from viruses is a New Thing.

People have been vulnerable forever. This is just a new virus to add to the mix. It's shit but true.

I can't in all conscience accept that life for everyone should be put on hold indefinitely (with a few breaks here and there for good behaviour) so that my risk is lowered, just as it wouldn't have crossed my mind to expect people to do so to prevent me catching flu. And I know we have a vaccine for flu, but I also know (again, from bitter experience) that the flu vaccine isn't always effective and some years they identify the wrong strain and people catch it anyway.

@Porcupineinwaiting

So basically the vulnerable would be screwed *@Desperado24*. Barred from education, health care and work and left to take their chances. Not so much "living with the "virus" but to hurry up and die of it.

I'd always suspected that "living with the virus" was a dog whistle for eugenicists but really hoped that it was about finding a better way forward.

A better way forward such as?

Come up with a viable one and I am sure you will get loads of support.

In the meantime let’s accept that nature is nature and let people start fully living their lives again.

If most people were willing to learn to live with it responsibly, maybe I'd agree with you. Letting this virus run through the country unchecked is not reasonable, no matter how one dresses it up. 'We didn't even try to protect them' would be the cries from angry loved ones. Vulnerable is not just old, even they would be at risk if staffing issues at hospitals meant they couldn't get the treatment for covid AND their other health issues.

I'm prepared to live life 'with it' when there's no likely vaccine for covid next year. We will know that late this year, or early next year. This is not 'forever', I wish people would stop thinking this. We need to at least try, don't we?

@Porcupineinwaiting

So basically the vulnerable would be screwed *@Desperado24*. Barred from education, health care and work and left to take their chances. Not so much "living with the "virus" but to hurry up and die of it.

I'd always suspected that "living with the virus" was a dog whistle for eugenicists but really hoped that it was about finding a better way forward.

I find it really offensive to call people 'eugenicists', if they are questioning if it's sustainable for us to carry on like this.

I'm also surprised at myself but yes. We unfortunately need to get to a position where those who are vulnerable need to take as many precautions as they feel necessary which may well include not going out etc. Everyone else needs to get on with it (whilst clearly taking the easy precautions like masks and social distancing).

I think there will be an ebb and flow to restrictions. If infections rise, more restrictions, as they drop again, they get lifted.
Herd immunity depends on a certain level of immunity being achieved in a population which means infections don't get spread. If natural immunity to this coronavirus only last a brief time then it's unlikely we will ever achieve it 'naturally'. Hence vaccination or better treatment will be the only way we can go back to normal. Unless we're willing to accept exponential rises in illness and many more people dying.
Think of a cycle of restrictions as being like applying the brakes on a bike as you go downhill.
Since this started doctors and scientists have made huge progress in terms of understanding this illness. People are already less likely to die if they end up in hospital.

I agree...

The reality is that the alternative simply does not work. Lockdowns do nothing to eradicate the virus but they destroy our economy, mental health and let people die of other conditions because they can't get treatment/operations...

I really don't understand why governments are not making that clear.

All we can do is masks/hygiene/ home working and get the testing and track and trace system right.

Everything else is just trying to believe in a fairy tale where lockdowns save everyone's lives and the virus disappears at the end or a vaccine magically appears in six months.

A vaccine might take years or might never happen.

I am really not quite sure why some people seem to have forgotten that we live in a world where life and death are part of the human conditions. There is no scenario where no one dies...

Imo we absolutely cannot continue destroying the economy and our young people’s futures for a virus that has an average victim age of above the U.K. life expectancy.

The focus should be on protecting those who are at risk and the rest of us keeping the economy going.